Opinion AFL Academy rules need to be refined

[briztoon]

NRL model?

NRL model, lol. NRL teams sign top rated juniors from outside their zones all the time.

Kaylen Ponga was a top rated junior in the Brisbane Broncos academy. He was poached by the Townsville Cowboys when he was 15. And was then signed by the Newcastle Knights as an 18 year old, but his move to his new club wasn't for another 18 months.

There's one rule in the NRL, money talks.

 

[sydney_gws]

The change of draft index value table should make a significant difference this year. Let's see. It could possibly go further.

AFL could easily limit how many bids are allowed to be matched in the first round. A bit surprisingly, AFL went the other way. From max 1 matching bid on academy kid in 1st round for 1-4 teams and 2 matching bids for 5-8 teams to no limit. I guess that's because now there are the same rules for F/S, NGA, Norther academies and clubs did not want that.

I don't see any good reason why top 4 top teams are allowed to match in the first round and now even without limit. So winner can still match multiple F/S NGA/academy kids in the first round. Leave it to bottom teams.

Academy kids increase total number of players playing footy.

I don't think academies run by AFL would be as efficient in NRL territories. It's a big motivation and assistance for kids to train with AFL players and use facilities and expertise of AFL clubs. Sponsors are involved too.

To be honest, I was shocked to read recently that Suns spend 2M on academy (some money from AFL, some from sponsors). Only 6-7 years back it was 300K apparently (when Swans were spending 2M in that time already, QBE sponsor).

Clubs will not run academies and put money into them unless they get some advantages. Academy kids on teams do provide stability and less retention issue.

SA, WA could do with academies to grow footy too.

Academies are good as players feel they are part of a club.
But if clubs like academies( and father sons), just make them use their own draft picks to match.
Allow 4 top 40 picks each 5 years for academy/ father sons , no more than 2 in a year.
So in 5 years, there are 200 top 40 picks.
Assume each club averages 2.5 in 5, so only 45 of the 200 picks affected, mainly matching with their own picks.
I think nga academies can go, they are bullsh**t.

 

[buttox]

The numbers of historical father sons is interesting.
124 since 1988 according to wiki and my possible dodgy counting.
3.44 per year for all clubs combined
Each club gets one about every 5 years.
If the academies are to compensate for these they should be getting a similar numbers.
5 in a year is insane.
Then we get swans and bris getting both.
Then we get Northern clubs poaching father sons because they are in a academy.
Rein it in a bit I reckon.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

good for them

I still see no reason as to why a Sandringham dragons spot in Melbourne was taken up by a Brisbane NGA , and all those opportunities where given to a player, who was only ever going to represent Brisbane, while other kids available to the all clubs where denied those opportunities and development.

Its completely ridiculous.

Each club should develop their own talent in their own state

I am perfectly happy to stop Talent League sides picking boarders from the private schools in their boundaries whose parents do not reside in their boundaries. But there's a reason they do that. If they don't, they're speeding up their own irrelevance. The private school competitions will attract the best young players if they scout them properly, because they can offer something no junior club can, an expensive education for free. If the best young talents are in the private school leagues rather than the Talent League, then the scouts will prefer to watch the private school leagues, and Talent League will becomes less and less relevant.

For those who wanted Marshall to lose his academy status because he took up a scholarship to Melbourne Grammar, consider that part of the reason he was offered the scholarship to begin with is because the Lions academy helped him develop his skills to that level. The equivalent pathway doesn't exist to anywhere near the same level in Queensland, because Brisbane Grammar and similar top private schools are biased against our game and refuse to play it, let alone offer scholarships for it.

If only Victorian private schools are offering scholarships and it causes a player to lose academy status, what stops them offering scholarships to every top northern academy kid once they turn 15, and killing off the academies in the process?

Just get rid of all the club run academies and let the AFL run them... although under the current(and most past ones) administration it may end up a colossal cluster f...

All players go into the open draft, I do like the romance of father/son but I wouldn't be too bothered if they got rid of that as well.

I'm also perfectly happy for this to happen, but as others have pointed out, AFL HQ were incompetent at it when they tried it themselves. And they seem far too lazy right now to do it again, properly this time. They seem more interested in commercial operations than in growing the game.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The numbers of historical father sons is interesting.
124 since 1988 according to wiki and my possible dodgy counting.
3.44 per year for all clubs combined
Each club gets one about every 5 years.
If the academies are to compensate for these they should be getting a similar numbers.

The academies aren't to compensate for a lack of F/S picks. They're there to grow the game in the rugby states by developing local talent, keeping them playing our game and slowly strengthening the quality of local competitions over time so the talent production becomes self-sustaining. The problem is the AFL couldn't do it properly themselves, so they fobbed it off on the northern clubs, who should be entitled to receive a benefit for all the work they're putting in. In fact it's helping the northern clubs avoid the go home factor by producing local talent for them.

5 in a year is insane.

Either that's the effect of talent not being evenly distributed over time, or it proves the academies are actually working and doing their job. The Suns seem to have a great crop most years now, in both the men's and the women's draft, so it's probably the latter.

The rescaling of points should help with reducing how many kids they can match bids on, though I'm also not opposed to capping how many first round matches they can do in a rolling period. I think it's a little unfair to cap it in just one year, because again, talent isn't evenly distributed over time. What if they have two talented kids in one year and then none for the next five? Is that worse than a team having one talented kid for five years straight?

 

[buttox]

The academies aren't to compensate for a lack of F/S picks. They're there to grow the game in the rugby states by developing local talent, keeping them playing our game and slowly strengthening the quality of local competitions over time so the talent production becomes self-sustaining. The problem is the AFL couldn't do it properly themselves, so they fobbed it off on the northern clubs, who should be entitled to receive a benefit for all the work they're putting in. In fact it's helping the northern clubs avoid the go home factor by producing local talent for them.


Either that's the effect of talent not being evenly distributed over time, or it proves the academies are actually working and doing their job. The Suns seem to have a great crop most years now, in both the men's and the women's draft, so it's probably the latter.

The rescaling of points should help with reducing how many kids they can match bids on, though I'm also not opposed to capping how many first round matches they can do in a rolling period. I think it's a little unfair to cap it in just one year, because again, talent isn't evenly distributed over time. What if they have two talented kids in one year and then none for the next five? Is that worse than a team having one talented kid for five years straight?

My bias is obvious.
It makes it harder to rebuild when your second pick is in the 30s.
Part of that is having a 18 team comp I suppose.
I hate zones and academies full stop. I get the idea of growing the northern states and it does have merret. But it can't just be a case of 50% of the countries population goes to 4 clubs and 50% goes to the 14 other clubs.
It needs refining. Not abolishing.
Idc too much who runs the academies. It seems to be working having them club affiliated.
That's my 2c anyways

 

[Johnny Bananas]

My bias is obvious.
It makes it harder to rebuild when your second pick is in the 30s.

Fair, but consider, the northern academies are adding to the pile of talent. If not for them, a lot of those kids wouldn't be first round prospects. North would be picking between the same kids from football states with a higher pick. Then NGAs came in and messed everything up by encouraging clubs to dig through birth certificates and ancestry to get kids in football states into their academies.

But it can't just be a case of 50% of the countries population goes to 4 clubs and 50% goes to the 14 other clubs.

And yet that first 50% isn't even enough for one team at the national championships. They also need Tasmania and the NT involved to make a strong enough team. And the Allies used to get thrashed every year, it's only recently that they're competitive in every game.

The best athletes in Queensland and NSW mostly go to the rugbies, not our game. When that changes, maybe we won't need academies anymore.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

NRL model, lol. NRL teams sign top rated juniors from outside their zones all the time.

Kaylen Ponga was a top rated junior in the Brisbane Broncos academy. He was poached by the Townsville Cowboys when he was 15. And was then signed by the Newcastle Knights as an 18 year old, but his move to his new club wasn't for another 18 months.

There's one rule in the NRL, money talks.

So long as they're all playing by the same salary cap, I don't see a problem with this. If a team want to offer a young kid a sack of money and the kid is happy to move cities to take it, that sounds fine.

The problem with the draft as an equalisation measure is, it isn't great in terms of short-term results. Rookie players are rarely great right out of the gates, so even one as talented as Harley Reid can't stop West Coast from being poor. It's a delayed equalisation measure, and that's if the club can develop talent properly. There's the risk that a bad club is like the early Gold Coast Suns, with such poor culture and coaching that they take the best talent in the country and turn them into career underachievers. Who knows if David Swallow or Jack Martin could have been superstars somewhere else?

In this respect the NRL does have a better system, because talent can be developed at good clubs and then spread around through contract offers and salary cap limitations. And I'd argue using cap space to throw money at veterans is the better and quicker way to make a bad team competitive. The NRL Bulldogs have gone from the bottom three in 2023 to top of the ladder right now on the back of signing good veterans. Even the rise of the Lions was built off signing experienced players like Neale and Cameron and Daniher rather than purely from draft picks.

The problem with the NRLs system is clubs can negotiate with players a year before their contract expires, and encourage them to seek early contract releases. This is a step too far in my opinion.

 

[Bostonian]

The academies aren't to compensate for a lack of F/S picks. They're there to grow the game in the rugby states by developing local talent, keeping them playing our game and slowly strengthening the quality of local competitions over time so the talent production becomes self-sustaining. The problem is the AFL couldn't do it properly themselves, so they fobbed it off on the northern clubs, who should be entitled to receive a benefit for all the work they're putting in. In fact it's helping the northern clubs avoid the go home factor by producing local talent for them.

The Coates Talent League proves you're talking crap.

Model is already there for junior clubs. Don't need you running an academy at all.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The Coates Talent League proves you're talking crap.

Model is already there for junior clubs. Don't need you running an academy at all.

Ah, you're back to grace us with your awful takes based on ignoring basic facts. Did you know the Coates Talent League operates in a state where Australian Rules is the dominant sport, and the Northern academies do not?

 

[Bostonian]

Ah, you're back to grace us with your awful takes based on ignoring basic facts. Did you know the Coates Talent League operates in a state where Australian Rules is the dominant sport, and the Northern academies do not?

The AFL operates in all states. Did you not know that?

It's a basic fact.

What league do your reserves play in?

 

[briztoon]

The Coates Talent League proves you're talking crap.

Model is already there for junior clubs. Don't need you running an academy at all.

He's not, but he worded it wrong.

The AFL didn't want to fund the Northern states development pathways, because they knew just how much they'd have to pump in to them, to get them to an equivalent level of the CTL,

As mentioned recently in an article on GC's academy, they are spending $2m a year on their academy. I don't know what it takes to fund a CTL team, but I'd be willing to bet it's less than $500k.

Brisbane put far less in to it's academy, and draft results demonstrate this, as despite having a far larger population to draw from for our academy, we're no where near close to producing the same number of draftees as Gold Coast.


It's a different sporting landscape up here. Most Vics can't fathom the idea that AFL isn't played in most schools up here, and the impact that has kids choosing or not choosing to play AFL from a young age.

There are two main Private School competitions up here, GPS (top tier private high schools) and AIC (second tier private high schools). AFL is played as a summer sport in the AIC schools, so it doesn't interfere with Rugby Union in Winter. While it's not played in GPS schools, because many of the P&C's are fighting against it's inclusion, as those same people are old boys and part of the Rugby inner circle.

AFL is played in 12 State High Schools, between the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast, so about 200km north south between the most southern and northern schools.

And all that leaves out the majority of the State's country cities up North (Cairns is 1700km away) or out West.


The AFL doesn't want to fund regional hubs, when you might get 1 or 2 kids from each of these hubs at best, who would be CTL standard (not draftable, just to the standard).

So QLD might, and it's a really big "if", be able to put together two competitive teams to enter the CTL. NSW probably struggles to put one competitive team most years.

So three teams. The the AFL would have to fund weekly travel and accommodation for us to enter the CTL.

Simple numbers demonstrate that the 4 Northern academies combined struggle to produce the same number of draftable kids most years, that Sandringham, or Oakleigh or Geelong produce by themselves. Last year, there were 5 northern academy kids drafted, 3 who went in the 3rd round, and 2 weren't even matched. The 2023 and 2025 drafts are anomalies, not the norm. Far more likely to just see second and third round academy kids in 2026 and 2027, while the Vic clubs load up on high end father son kids, and the WA clubs load up on high end nga kids.

 

[briztoon]

The AFL operates in all states. Did you not know that?

It's a basic fact.

What league do your reserves play in?

Our reserves are players who have already been drafted, or full of top ups who were overlooked and not deemed worthy enough.

We're talking pathways here, and there are 20 high schools across the public and private schooling system that play AFL. When there are 276 State High Schools, 23 private boys High Schools and ~190 co-ed private schools.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The AFL operates in all states. Did you not know that?

"Nauruan" is a palindrome. That has about as much relevance to the conversation as what you just posted.

 

[Bostonian]

He's not, but he worded it wrong.

The AFL didn't want to fund the Northern states development pathways, because they knew just how much they'd have to pump in to them, to get them to an equivalent level of the CTL,

As mentioned recently in an article on GC's academy, they are spending $2m a year on their academy. I don't know what it takes to fund a CTL team, but I'd be willing to bet it's less than $500k.

Brisbane put far less in to it's academy, and draft results demonstrate this, as despite having a far larger population to draw from for our academy, we're no where near close to producing the same number of draftees as Gold Coast.

So it's still the AFL paying for it.

AFL financially props up GC don't they?

It's the rest of the league paying for their academy in reality.

It's a different sporting landscape up here. Most Vics can't fathom the idea that AFL isn't played in most schools up here, and the impact that has kids choosing or not choosing to play AFL from a young age.

There's large amounts of ex-Victorians up there.

I remember in the 80's knowing about QLD leagues that were full of ex-Victorians. Knew of people who moved up there and joined clubs. It's why the likes of Dunstall and Riewoldt came from QLD long before GC existed.

There are two main Private School competitions up here, GPS (top tier private high schools) and AIC (second tier private high schools). AFL is played as a summer sport in the AIC schools, so it doesn't interfere with Rugby Union in Winter. While it's not played in GPS schools, because many of the P&C's are fighting against it's inclusion, as those same people are old boys and part of the Rugby inner circle.

AFL is played in 12 State High Schools, between the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast, so about 200km north south between the most southern and northern schools.

And all that leaves out the majority of the State's country cities up North (Cairns is 1700km away) or out West.


The AFL doesn't want to fund regional hubs, when you might get 1 or 2 kids from each of these hubs at best, who would be CTL standard (not draftable, just to the standard).

So QLD might, and it's a really big "if", be able to put together two competitive teams to enter the CTL. NSW probably struggles to put one competitive team most years.

So three teams. The the AFL would have to fund weekly travel and accommodation for us to enter the CTL.

Simple numbers demonstrate that the 4 Northern academies combined struggle to produce the same number of draftable kids most years, that Sandringham, or Oakleigh or Geelong produce by themselves. Last year, there were 5 northern academy kids drafted, 3 who went in the 3rd round, and 2 weren't even matched. The 2023 and 2025 drafts are anomalies, not the norm. Far more likely to just see second and third round academy kids in 2026 and 2027, while the Vic clubs load up on high end father son kids, and the WA clubs load up on high end nga kids.

Seems like that the academies are doing an average job then and need to be taken over by the AFL with more money pumped into it.

If you're not churning out far larger numbers of players for all clubs to recruit then you're failing the experiment.

The thing that needs to be done is get rid of this go home mentality that seems to be an issue in AFL. It's an AFL issue that would seem completely strange to other professional sports.

 

[Bostonian]

Our reserves are players who have already been drafted, or full of top ups who were overlooked and not deemed worthy enough.

We're talking pathways here, and there are 20 high schools across the public and private schooling system that play AFL. When there are 276 State High Schools, 23 private boys High Schools and ~190 co-ed private schools.

So exactly the same pathways can be created that are present elsewhere. The draw of playing more regular high level junior football should be a draw for young athletes in the sport.

Victoria still has to fill 12 teams worth of players. Some teams from areas not heavily populated.

 

[Tom14]

This section of an article on Greg Swann's AFL appointment caught my eye:

After 25 years as a club boss, Greg Swann joins the AFL ‘mothership’

The AFL’s new footy supremo says his No.1 priority will be improving the relationship between the league’s head office and its clubs. But there’s one argument Victorian clubs might not get much traction on.

www.theage.com.au

While the news was broadly welcomed at club level, some clubs – St Kilda being the most vocal – have been agitating for changes to the talent academies in the northern states. Those arguing for change might find that Swann, given his experience as Lions chief executive, is unpersuaded by their academy concerns.

 

[Freomaniac]

They’re onto us

Bulls**t. LoL

Your clubs father son picks are no match against Ken Hinkley and his coaching lol

 

[briztoon]

So it's still the AFL paying for it.

AFL financially props up GC don't they?

It's the rest of the league paying for their academy in reality.





There's large amounts of ex-Victorians up there.

I remember in the 80's knowing about QLD leagues that were full of ex-Victorians. Knew of people who moved up there and joined clubs. It's why the likes of Dunstall and Riewoldt came from QLD long before GC existed.




Seems like that the academies are doing an average job then and need to be taken over by the AFL with more money pumped into it.

If you're not churning out far larger numbers of players for all clubs to recruit then you're failing the experiment.

The thing that needs to be done is get rid of this go home mentality that seems to be an issue in AFL. It's an AFL issue that would seem completely strange to other professional sports.

 

[briztoon]

So exactly the same pathways can be created that are present elsewhere. The draw of playing more regular high level junior football should be a draw for young athletes in the sport.

Victoria still has to fill 12 teams worth of players. Some teams from areas not heavily populated.

 

[Bostonian]

Says the guy who admits his club is doing a shit job with having an academy...

"Brisbane put far less in to it's academy, and draft results demonstrate this, as despite having a far larger population to draw from for our academy, we're no where near close to producing the same number of draftees as Gold Coast."

Hand it all over to the AFL.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I'm glad you've realised your efforts are wasted in this conversation. Good faith arguments are worth the trouble, this past page has not been one of them.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Says the guy who admits his club is doing a shit job with having an academy...

"Brisbane put far less in to it's academy, and draft results demonstrate this, as despite having a far larger population to draw from for our academy, we're no where near close to producing the same number of draftees as Gold Coast."

Hand it all over to the AFL.

They tried it, it was a complete and utter failure, the AFL don't want to do it again. We are finally seeing seeing SOME rewards but we don't need to go back to the other system where it was awful. NSW, QLD are completely different landscapes to other areas, you are directly competing with especially RL. You need these pathways to get some of these good athletes to want to play AFL.

What needed to happen and it finally has, is the points value index has to be better and fairer regardless whether it's F/S, academy, NGA, whatever. Lets wait and see how this year works, in theory it's a mile better system rather than throwing the toys out before it's implemented why don't we wait. With the new index you are literally hamstrung in how many you can match, and plenty more will be left to the ope draft. I'll use us we have 3 kids this year, we will struggle to match all unless we trade a good player out OR we trade in our f1 next year. That is a decision our club will make in due course. What this has stopped is a first rounder being worth junk in the 3rd and 4th round

 

[Bostonian]

They tried it, it was a complete and utter failure, the AFL don't want to do it again. We are finally seeing seeing SOME rewards but we don't need to go back to the other system where it was awful. NSW, QLD are completely different landscapes to other areas, you are directly competing with especially RL. You need these pathways to get some of these good athletes to want to play AFL.

What needed to happen and it finally has, is the points value index has to be better and fairer regardless whether it's F/S, academy, NGA, whatever. Lets wait and see how this year works, in theory it's a mile better system rather than throwing the toys out before it's implemented why don't we wait. With the new index you are literally hamstrung in how many you can match, and plenty more will be left to the ope draft. I'll use us we have 3 kids this year, we will struggle to match all unless we trade a good player out OR we trade in our f1 next year. That is a decision our club will make in due course. What this has stopped is a first rounder being worth junk in the 3rd and 4th round

The AFL need to do better then. As it is Sydney and Brisbane get a quadruple boost compared to other clubs.

You get to select anyone from the southern states, you get F/S, you get NGA and you get academy.

Why is it your club should be getting the biggest leg up in the comp?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The AFL need to do better then. As it is Sydney and Brisbane get a quadruple boost compared to other clubs.

You get to select anyone from the southern states, you get F/S, you get NGA and you get academy.

Why is it your club should be getting the biggest leg up in the comp?

Yet you had no issue last year getting a leg up yourselves though?

We only get academy and F/S, not that any of the latter have done much, I mean we even let Dunkley go as he didn't want to be here. Brisbane have barely got any out of their academy Marshall is one, and Hipwood that hardly anyone rates aside from his 1 in 4 game.

The AFL are not taking academies back it's not going to happen, even more so while they have their hands full with Tassie coming in. they are only slowly working. You'll see over the next few years GC can't match half theirs, no way can we match ours not that we have had that many lately, and before you say Gulden he like a few others were not nearly as rated as you think.

Give this new system a go, yes there will be tweaks, but the AFL won't be running it was a disaster last time with them pumping money in for no rewards.